Steven Avery
Administrator
Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments of Dubious Authenticity
Larry Hurtado
March 15, 2018
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2018/03/15/dead-sea-scrolls-fragments-of-dubious-authenticity/
And I discussed with Kipp Davis these fragments a bit. In April, 2017 we discussed by Messenger his studies and paper and the Museum of the Bible. I was impressed with his scholarship and approach and forthrightness in the papers.
The last chat related to BAM (Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung, Berlin) and Dr. Ira Rabin involved in special materials testing of the pseudo-DSS fragments. BAM is the group that planned Sinaiticus testing in 2015, in coordination with the Leipzig University Library, and that testing was .. cancelled.
On Sinaiticus, Kipp Davis makes the common scholarly error of thinking that Tommy Wasserman must really understand the issues involved with Sinaiticus, and defers to his conclusions. Without personal consideration of the amazing evidences of non-authenticity. When there is "deeply entrenched scholarship" involved, the scholars are easily intimidated. Who wants to be accused of wearing a tin foil hat!
Now, there are other incredible evidences that also corroborate the evidences from the artificial colouring and the "phenomenally good condition" (Helen Shenton, British Library) of the manuscript. However, all those fascinating elements are not the purpose of the current post.
PureBible
Oh, those poor Brit textual scholars and their Sinaiticus white elephant.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1641643955927487/
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
Larry Hurtado
March 15, 2018
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2018/03/15/dead-sea-scrolls-fragments-of-dubious-authenticity/
And I discussed with Kipp Davis these fragments a bit. In April, 2017 we discussed by Messenger his studies and paper and the Museum of the Bible. I was impressed with his scholarship and approach and forthrightness in the papers.
The last chat related to BAM (Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung, Berlin) and Dr. Ira Rabin involved in special materials testing of the pseudo-DSS fragments. BAM is the group that planned Sinaiticus testing in 2015, in coordination with the Leipzig University Library, and that testing was .. cancelled.
============================
COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE LARRY HURTADO BLOG POST
Thanks!
The Kipp Davis analysis is superb. Keep in mind that Kipp had full access to study the material (apparently the MOTB is supporting further study, even while their public presentation is not really communicative enough about the problem.)
And what about situations where there is no real access allowed?
With Codex Sinaiticus the only materials testing was planned for 2015 by Leipzig, with BAM (Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung, Berlin) and Dr. Ira Rabin involved. Those planned tests were quietly cancelled.
Yet anyone can look at the new information available since 2009 from the Codex Sinaiticus Project and see the incredible BEFORE and AFTER evidence.
The parts taken to Leipzig 1844, 86 pages, are white parchment, not stained. And the parts taken to St. Petersburg in 1859 are yellow and stained, streaked parchment.
And this distinction between the (5) sections exactly matches the stated claims in 1862-1864 that the manuscript had been artificially stained in the 1850s, using lemon juice and herbs, to give an appearance of age! Oops.
And much more has been discovered in the last decade. Historical forensics should examine such evidences. Even if, due to Library controls, you can not do materials testing.
Your thoughts welcome!
==============
Here is were Larry Hurtado came close to discussing the historical aspects.
A Master Hoaxer: Constantine Simonides
Larry Hurtado - April 20, 2014
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/a-master-hoaxer-constantine-simonides/
"Simonides really came to worldwide attention when (in 1862) he claimed to have written Codex Sinaiticus himself (in 1840)."
That was the public controversy, although Tischendorf was concerned about the Simonides claims even in 1859. And Hort wrote about the Simonides claims iin 1861 in correspondence. And others also verified that the Simonides claims were early (the Tischendorf facsimile edition was 1862.)
===============
On Sinaiticus, Kipp Davis makes the common scholarly error of thinking that Tommy Wasserman must really understand the issues involved with Sinaiticus, and defers to his conclusions. Without personal consideration of the amazing evidences of non-authenticity. When there is "deeply entrenched scholarship" involved, the scholars are easily intimidated. Who wants to be accused of wearing a tin foil hat!
Now, there are other incredible evidences that also corroborate the evidences from the artificial colouring and the "phenomenally good condition" (Helen Shenton, British Library) of the manuscript. However, all those fascinating elements are not the purpose of the current post.
Facebook discussionThe Lying Pen of Scribes
https://www.facebook.com/lyingpen/posts/789902071204385
Larry Hurtado's praise of two important Dead Sea Discoveries articles from last year: Kipp Davis et al., “Nine Dubious ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ Fragments From the Twenty-First Century,” DSD 24.2 (2017): 189-228 and Kipp Davis, “Caves of Dispute: Patterns of Correspondence and Suspicion in the Post-2002 ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ Fragments,” DSD 24.2 (2017): 229-70 (via Morten K. Beckmann).
PureBible
Oh, those poor Brit textual scholars and their Sinaiticus white elephant.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1641643955927487/
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY